Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

And like every word that was written by the framers, the words of the 2nd Amendment were carefully weighed and chosen.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." means that said right will not be infringed.". "Will not be infringed" is infinitely broad and unrelenting regardless of who has weighed in on it since. It is the same as saying "Thou shalt not". It leaves no wiggle room. It kills all subsequent rationalization.

A militia is a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. It is the balance to governmental power. The framers correctly stated that armed citizens are necessary to the security and freedom of the state. So they very deliberately framed that the right of the citizens to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be compromised - in any way. No restrictions. No regulation. No denial of classes of weapons. No licensing. And the militia was to be regulated by the states.

Politicians hate this stuff because it serves to keep them in check. By design.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricardisimo

Wow. A new low has been reached. And of course we're not without precedent, Vinny. We've got some real beauts to resurrect, if precedent is all it takes.

Said the anarchist that denies God but wonders why God hates amputees. Always nice to hear from you Ric.

__________________

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution,
but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

And like every word that was written by the framers, the words of the 2nd Amendment were carefully weighed and chosen.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." means that said right will not be infringed.". "Will not be infringed" is infinitely broad and unrelenting regardless of who has weighed in on it since. It is the same as saying "Thou shalt not". It leaves no wiggle room. It kills all subsequent rationalization.

A militia is a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. It is the balance to governmental power. The framers correctly stated that armed citizens are necessary to the security and freedom of the state. So they very deliberately framed that the right of the citizens to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be compromised - in any way. No restrictions. No regulation. No denial of classes of weapons. No licensing. And the militia was to be regulated by the states.

Politicians hate this stuff because it serves to keep them in check. By design.

Said the anarchist that denies God but wonders why God hates amputees. Always nice to hear from you Ric.

And for the record, I think Vinny's correct: the 2nd Amendment is crystal clear... which is why it has to be repealed.

And like every word that was written by the framers, the words of the 2nd Amendment were carefully weighed and chosen.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." means that said right will not be infringed.". "Will not be infringed" is infinitely broad and unrelenting regardless of who has weighed in on it since. It is the same as saying "Thou shalt not". It leaves no wiggle room. It kills all subsequent rationalization.

A militia is a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. It is the balance to governmental power. The framers correctly stated that armed citizens are necessary to the security and freedom of the state. So they very deliberately framed that the right of the citizens to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be compromised - in any way. No restrictions. No regulation. No denial of classes of weapons. No licensing. And the militia was to be regulated by the states..

Not certain whether you are lumping in Justice Scalia with the other "politicians" or not.

Just for giggles why don't you read Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller (the 4 dissenters wanted to uphold the DC handgun rule as constitutional) and reconsider whether your absolutist view of the Second Amendment really reflects the views of the Founders. Scalia prides himself as being an originalist when it comes to interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, as noted in this lecture at the University of Virginia

Examining what the Founders meant when writing the Constitution is the best method for judging cases, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Friday during a lecture sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Freedom of Expression.

“My burden is not to show that originalism is perfect, but that it beats the other alternatives, and that, believe me, is not difficult,” Scalia said.

Originalism suggests that the Constitution has a static meaning, Scalia said. ...

Even the most ardent non-originalist will have to resort to historical inquiry at times to understand legal concepts like the writ of habeas corpus or cases of admiralty, he said.

Scalia pointed to District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 Supreme Court case in which several D.C. residents challenged the District’s ban on handguns and restrictions on other firearms. Defenders of the law said the right to “bear arms” as outlined in the Second Amendment had an exclusively military meaning, but a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court showed the meaning was different by looking at historical texts.

Justice Scalia concluded in Heller that the Second Amendment enacted by the Founders provides ample room for restrictions upon the bearing of arms. You obviously disagree with him, but he seems to be pretty well versed on the issue andsome credible citations to scholarly support for your view (that does not mean newsmax) would be appreciated.

So they very deliberately framed that the right of the citizens to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be compromised - in any way. No restrictions. No regulation. No denial of classes of weapons. No licensing. And the militia was to be regulated by the states.

In accordance with his holding in the Heller case, Justice Scalia had this to say about the Second Amendment and regulations of firearms on Fox News Sunday today

SCALIA WARNS: GUNS MAY BE REGULATED

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

In accordance with his holding in the Heller case, Justice Scalia had this to say about the Second Amendment and regulations of firearms on Fox News Sunday today

SCALIA WARNS: GUNS MAY BE REGULATED

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

[Updated at 12:17 p.m ET] James Holmes, the man accused of opening fire this month inside an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, has been officially charged with a total of 142 counts, including first degree murder in relation to the shooting.